Nope, it is provable that a LT, no matter how good they may be, won't make a mediocre Qb better, it works the other way around. Drew Brees made how many LT's millionaires? Is Ferguson making Sanchez a better Qb..nope And yet, there is this sort of proto fan gospel that buys into that line of thinking as if it were 1985 and Taylor was speeding around the end. Times change, don't overpay for that position.
Wrong, if that means 3 more pressures, not sacks mind you, a game is all that is holding back your offense then it probably is not very potent to begin with no matter who is playing LT
I notice nobody even attempted to answer your very valid question. It shoots down the entire argument. Besides the causation fallacies, there's nothing to the notion of franchise LT anymore. The success of the teams being used to support the notion has so much more to do with the QB position than anything to do with a franchise tackle. Anyone who still doesn't get that it's a QB driven league just isn't paying attention and clinging to past outdated models of building football teams. I'm not trying to say quality tackles aren't important to football teams. Or that having a top tackle is a terrible idea. And there are certainly times where it makes sense to draft tackles early in the draft. But they are not the foundation of a football team as some try to make them out to be.
I asked earlier if anyone could quantify the difference between an average and great LT. I haven't gotten an answer yet, so I started to research it. I didn't get far, before some interesting things came to light. Again, I didn't get far, but I started with PFF. First, let's look at time to throw for QBs. With Tanny, I'm going to include Wilson, RGIII & Luck to see if we can get a fair comparison. [table="width: 500, class: free"] [TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"] [td]Name[/td] [td]Dropbacks[/td] [td]Time to Throw[/td] [td]Rank[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Wilson[/td] [td]274[/td] [td]3.14[/td] [td]1[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RGIII[/td] [td]309[/td] [td]3.01[/td] [td]4[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Luck[/td] [td]371[/td] [td]2.86[/td] [td]6[/td] [/tr] [TR="bgcolor: #009ca5"] [td]Tannehill[/td] [td]261[/td] [td]2.57[/td] [td]30[/td] [/tr] [/table] Ok, so Tannehill has less time to throw the ball then the 3 other rookies from last year that everyone loves. What does that mean for production? Well, the more time you have as a QB the better chance you have of making things happen and the better your QB should be. 2.5 seconds is generally the flat line that you measure from. Its the average. So let's look at the percentage of their time spent in the pocket with OVER 2.5 seconds to throw. [table="width: 500, class: free"] [TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"] [td]Name[/td] [td]%[/td] [td]Comp%[/td] [td]Sacks[/td] [td]QB Rating[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Luck[/td] [td]59.3[/td] [td]56[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]76.7[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Wilson[/td] [td]55.1[/td] [td]57.5[/td] [td]13[/td] [td]85.9[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RGIII[/td] [td]47.9[/td] [td]57.3[/td] [td]19[/td] [td]88.5[/td] [/tr] [TR="bgcolor: #009ca5"] [td]Tannehill[/td] [td]39.8[/td] [td]60.7[/td] [td]11[/td] [td]96.5[/td] [/tr] [/table] Its fair to say at this point, that Tannehill is a dramatically better QB with more time to throw, except he and RGIII were the 2 most accurate QBs under pressure. RGIII because he'd run and Tannehill because he'd throw it away. But both were significantly better than their rookie counterparts. [table="width: 700, class: free"] [TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"] [td]Name[/td] [td]Pressure%[/td] [td]Sack%[/td] [td]INT%[/td] [td]Throwaway%[/td] [td]Acc%[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RGIII[/td] [td]35[/td] [td]18.8[/td] [td]2.67[/td] [td]4[/td] [td]82.1[/td] [/tr] [TR="bgcolor: #009ca5"] [td]Tannehill[/td] [td]28.3[/td] [td]20.2[/td] [td]2.70[/td] [td]16.22[/td] [td]80.7[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Wilson[/td] [td]39.3[/td] [td]16.1[/td] [td]3.80[/td] [td]18.99[/td] [td]65.1[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Luck[/td] [td]36.3[/td] [td]13.3[/td] [td]3.2[/td] [td]6.40[/td] [td]60.6[/td] [/tr] [/table] So....how do the tackles for those QBs rank in terms of Pass Blocking Efficiency (PBE) (which is a stat takes "into account how much total pressure they give up, how many snaps they’re in pass protection for, and how quickly the pressure comes.") *All four QBs are right handed. [table="width: 700, class: free"] [TR="bgcolor: #EEEEEE"] [td]Name[/td] [td]LT/RT[/td] [td]Pass Block Snaps[/td] [td]Total Pressures[/td] [td]PBE[/td] [td]Rank[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Wilson[/td] [td]LT Okung[/td] [td]302[/td] [td]13[/td] [td]96.8[/td] [td]t-6[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td]RT Giacomini[/td] [td]327[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]92.8[/td] [td]54[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]RGIII[/td] [td]LT Williams[/td] [td]341[/td] [td]16[/td] [td]96.3[/td] [td]t-11[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td]RT Polumbus[/td] [td]378[/td] [td]39[/td] [td]91.9[/td] [td]59[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]Luck[/td] [td]LT Castonzo[/td] [td]501[/td] [td]41[/td] [td]93.5[/td] [td]t-49[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td][/td] [td]RT Justice[/td] [td]386[/td] [td]22[/td] [td]95.7[/td] [td]t-17[/td] [/tr] [TR="bgcolor: #009ca5"] [td]Tannehill[/td] [td]LT Long[/td] [td]N/A[/td] [td]N/A[/td] [td]N/A[/td] [td]21[/td] [/tr] [TR="bgcolor: #009ca5"] [td][/td] [td]RT Martin[/td] [td]381[/td] [td]36[/td] [td]92.7[/td] [td]t-55[/td] [/tr] [/table] ***They did not have numbers for 21-45. They did say in the article that Long was 21 however. They didn't have guard and center numbers for me to compare. That clearly indicates our tackles are worse compared to those other 3 QBs'. So where does that leave us? Can we glean anything from these numbers? At first glance, it seems better line play makes better QBs, but did this really answer my question about average (not below average) vs great oline play? I dunno...thoughts?
Thing with that FinD, is they also kept Tannehill mostly in the pocket for well over half of the season, Luck and Wilson and RG3 all did more roll outs which effects pressures but cuts the field in half. It also strikes me that the difference between Luck and RG3 in pressure coming from the LT slot is 28. 28/16=1.2 per game (or so?) The other thing that your numbers suggest to me is your RT is possibly more important than your LT as they tend to give up more pressures. IE, defenses may merely be rolling their best pass rusher on your RT b/c they are usually not seen as important as the vaunted LT..imo the numbers suggest differently
RGIII & Wilson were #1 & #2 in the most amount of play action drop backs. Luck was in the bottom 5 though, and Tannehill was somewhere in the middle (they don't give his numbers.) However, when in play action, Tannehill had the 3rd biggest jump in completion percentage after Newton (1) and Cutler (2). Tanny was 3rd yards per attempt increase on play action after Smith (1) and RGIII (2). I don't know if I'd go that far. it could just mean that the better tackles are on the left.
Of course it's a QB driven league, but the stupid idea that a really good LT doesn't make your QB play better is just that....stupid. No one here is preaching that we need to move up to the top 3 to grab another Jake Long and spend half our picks to do it. But, if you can bring it Albert, and only give up #54 pick for him, then it's a good idea, assuming he can stay relatively healthy. This continual no sense by Padre and Co. To isolate individual positions and compare them rather than look at them as part of the bigger puzzle is so stupid
FTR, Albert was*ranked #9 for PBE from above. (360 PA snaps, 16 pressures allowed, PBE 96.6). Which if he was here with Martin last year instead of Long, that would have put us in between SEA & WAS on the chart above. Which likely would have put Tannehill's time to throw closer to 3 seconds. Which might have put is QB rating into the 90s. Food for thought.
Hmm, perhaps one is not quite getting the thrust of my point, you need a COMPETENT LT, not a "franchise" one, the sort of pay him 9 million and use a high #1 pick on type of LT. The problem with Albert is not the #2 pick (imo, it doesn't matter where you draft someone as long as they pan out, a 4th rd pick could easily become a much better player than a #2 pick) it's the Contract and health issues. For example, the Ravens had this approach right when they rented McKinnie for a yr for cheap.
Downside is he is not a very good run blocker. And as your number show, RT is just as important, if Martin is not seen as a good LT, why would he then be relied on to be a good RT? B/c the position is not valued as highly amongst fans, it goes against the "franchise LT!" stuff we've all been fed over the years.
Because if winning the game revolves around passing, which it does, then you want to maximize your performance in that area, and other positions may not have anywhere near the impact on that performance. How do you know Henne wouldn't have been significantly worse with someone significantly worse than Long at LT?
Well, the numbers show that one tackle spot is generally grouped up towards the back and the other needs to be good or at least better than 20. Indy, was an anomaly because their RT was the highly rated one, while their LT was ranked like the other 3 RTs. Basically, if you really look at those numbers, the discrepancy was Long, not Martin.
RT is not as valued because its the strong side and its much easier to get him help..The LT needs to be able to block on an island or you have to change quite a bit more to get him help than you would on the strongside.
Too bad that's just from one position. You need to up those 3 extra pressures by a handful more to account for all your average linemen since pressure doesn't just come for left tackle.
Great graphic that charts LT performance vas price for all 32 starters. https://twitter.com/ESPNMag/status/325640701184450562/photo/1
Don't quite agree on grouping a "big contract". And a high #1 pick are pretty different IMO. Like you said, #2 pick is not a big deal, but top pick in1st round is bigger hit to the team when it doesn't pan out it impacts the team much more than a 9 million dollar contract
Ah, but the problem is, for that high pick you lose the chance to take a player who makes more impact in games, with the new cap you can now gamble more so why go the safe route for a marginal return when you can get a higher ROI with a different position? IMO, if you are going to draft a LT, it should be late rd #1 MAYBE mid rd #1 if you have your skill positions ironed out.
I think that's what I just said, we're agreeing on this point. I have no problem trading a 2nd and paying for Albert, but I would have a big problem trading multiple picks to move up to top 5 to get a LT. Having said that, I still was fine with drafting Jake Long, it was a different time with a different offense
I'm OK with a LT making really good money or spending a high draft pick on one if he's going to be great. I'm not OK with spending the #1 overall, another 1st rounder a few years later on a C/G, a high pick on a RT/LT, then making a trade involving a 2nd rounder and ton of cash to try and solidify the offensive line. We've been chasing our tails with the offensive line for years now and its just gotten laughable and absurd at this point. We've invested so many high draft picks on our line, to still have holes on it is just unreal. How do really good teams get by spending 2nd day picks and late rounders and still having good offensive lines yet we can't put a decent line together after spending our highest picks over the last 5 years (with the notable exception of Tannehill) on linemen?
You guys are creating a strawman argument for Padre. He is saying, you don't need Grade A resources at left tackle. A good LT will do just fine. You guys keep trying to argue about a terrible left tackle. Paddy never says that. He's saying, good is good enough. The cost/benefit of moving from good to elite isn't worth it, if you don't have skill positions ironed out.
4 recent superbowl winners had swiss cheese as their offensive line. NYG two Superbowls. Steelers two superbowls. David Diehl who NEVER started at LT slid over from guard and graded out terrible as an LT. Oops, 18-1 thanks to them. You only need good. You don't need great.
My argument is also long the lines (as you point out) LT's still matter, but they should be bumped down the constellation of Qb/Wr/TE/Pass Rusher/CB (I'd argue FS is now more important) Center. stick tackle in after Center I also think explosive Returner means more than people currently believe.
Doesn't that apply to every position? I mean, what position do you "need" to be great at? DB, DL, Kicker? Where? The Giants anecdotes are nice but I think Strahan, tuck, Kiwanuka, Umenyiora and co had a lot to do with the outcome. IIRC it was New England's inability to protect the QB that led to the highest scoring offense of all time getting shut down. 14 points. I guess good wasn't good enough that day.
I dunno, that was my question as well. Based on PFF's numbers SEA, WAS, IND and us, all had one poor tackle, but those 3 also had an above average tackle and they had significantly more time for their QBs to throw and all made the playoffs.
You made several statements suggesting drafting a tackle in the first round resulted in playoff appearances for those teams that drafted them. If you don't understand why that's a causation fallacy, then this genius doesn't have time to explain it to you. Try google.
Too many on this board love arguing against a position that doesn't exist instead of trying to understand what's actually being said and responding civilly.
I hear ya but anyone who says FS is more important than LT ought to receive a moderator warning. At least.
FS is sort of the "new" middle linebacker, if you don't have a good one your defense is in for a very long day, basically the offense will pass at will and there is little the d can do to stop it.
That's funny, because you're creating an...whatever the opposite of a straw man...is for Padre. He didn't come up with anything resembling a coherent argument about the difference between good and great. He re-posted a PFF tweet noting specific situation the Chiefs are in- They can't really substantially upgrade in pass protection over Brandon Albert. That's not even close to the same thing.
Brandon Albert gave up 1 sack, 4 Qb hits and 12 QB pressures Jon Martin gave up 6 sacks, 4 QB hits and 47 QB pressures. Total playing right side and left side. Playing on the right side he gave up 4 sacks 2 QB hits and 30 QB pressures in 11 games. Playing on the Left side he gave up 2 sacks 2 QB hits and 17 QB pressures in 5 games.
Yeah, no I didn't. I think you need to reread Padre's posed question and my direct response before salivating over the idea of thinking you're highlighting some sort of flaw in my thinking and subsequently jumping to absurd conclusions. Here, let me walk you through it since you seemed to have difficulty the first time around. Here's Padre's generalized post: {Seems he was falsely thinking winning teams don't invest high picks on oline and was trying to use that to support his argument that tackles aren't important} ... and here's my response: See how that works? Padre asked a question to the board thinking it was helping his argument and I answered it, simply showing that he was operating under a false assumption about winning teams not investing high picks on offensive linemen. Period. That's it. Did I say one thing about causation? No. Now let me know if I need to walk you through it a second time.
I think its silly for you to not factor in the switch in line style and injuries. Actually, silly isn't the right word....negligent is better.
